Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Conservatives and Liberals effectively tied

Two new polls, both showing the Conservatives and Liberals only one point apart (and to the advantage of the Tories), have nudged the vote projection into a virtual tie. That means the Conservative seat lead, which stood at 10 on Jan. 13, has now increased to 17. Nevertheless, the Conservatives are no closer to majority territory, and in fact still overlap a great deal with the Liberals.

The Liberals are still narrowly ahead in the aggregate, with 33.4% support to 33.2% for the Conservatives. That is a small drop of 0.3 points for the Liberals since the last update, and a gain of 0.8 for the Conservatives. The New Democrats are up 0.7 points to 21.3%.

In terms of seats, the Conservatives still lead with 139 (up three), or a range of between 122 and 155. Interestingly, the high range for the Tories has not moved at all. Instead, only the lower range has increased, from 117. It means the odds that the Conservatives would win fewer seats than the Liberals on current polling levels have lessened, but the Tories are no closer to the magic number of 170.

The Liberals have dropped four seats and their high range has fallen from 144 to 138. Their low range of 107 seats, however, is steady.

The NDP is up two seats to 74, but its low and high ranges have narrowed from 54 to 87 seats on Jan. 13 to 60 to 84 seats now.

The NDP was unchanged at 20%, while the Greens and Bloc were each up one point to 6% and 5%, respectively.

None of these shifts were outside the margin of error.

Abacus showed similar stability, with the Conservatives and Liberals each down one point to 33% and 32%, respectively, since Abacus's last poll of Dec. 18-20. The NDP was up two points to 24%, while the Greens were down one to 5% and the Bloc was unchanged at 4%.

All of these shifts were also within the margin of error (of a probabilistic sample of similar size), but it is clear from both Forum's and Abacus's trend lines that the Liberals are drooping to the benefit of the Conservatives (if not in absolute terms, at least in relative terms).

This is also the first time since Justin Trudeau became Liberal leader that two consecutive polls by two different pollsters have shown a Conservative edge.

Forum does have a regional oddity in its numbers, though. In Quebec, Forum gave the Conservatives 26% support, putting them in second place ahead of the NDP (25%) and behind the Liberals (27%). That is absurdly high for the Conservatives (you need to go back to before the 2008 election to find the Conservatives routinely polling at that level), but Forum has often had higher numbers than usual for the Conservatives in Quebec. And broadly speaking, the Tories have been experiencing an uptick in the province, so perhaps this is a product of that.

Both Forum and Abacus showed a close race in Ontario, the Conservatives ahead in B.C., Alberta, and the Prairies, and the Liberals in front in Atlantic Canada. Quebec was the bone of contention.

The projection model is showing some interesting regional fluctuations as well. In British Columbia, the Liberals have now fallen to second place, though they are unchanged at 31%. The Conservatives are up 3.1 points to 31% as well, and are narrowly ahead of the Liberals. Their seat range has improved from 13-18 to 15-22. The NDP has dropped by 2.2 points to 24%, and their range from 10-13 to 6-11.

The Liberals are sliding in the Prairies. They are now at 29%, and have been consistently dropping since mid-December, when they were at 34%. The NDP has benefited, improving from 17% in mid-December to 23% now.

Vote projection in Quebec

In Quebec, the Liberals dropped 1.2 points (and from 20-30 seats to 19-26 seats) to 28%, putting them narrowly behind the NDP, which was up 1.6 points to 28% (and from 29-47 seats to 34-46). The Liberals have been sliding here as well, having had 34% support in mid-October.

But it is the Conservatives who have taken advantage, up from 13% in early November to 20% now. They have pushed the Bloc into fourth place, and are now estimated to be in play in 11-16 seats.

A couple regions to keep an eye on, then. Overall, things remain quite close. The Conservatives are inching up in the national tally, but have actually dropped a little in Ontario. That is what is keeping them from pulling ahead more decisively in the seat projection.

73 comments:

Using this trend for another 8 months it has the CPC at 39 and Liberals at 26.

This would be leading into the election, ie no Trudeau election gaffes taken into account. The Liberal plan to stand for nothing will have them in a battle with the NDP for 2nd spot.

Justin’s dad was the best rookie PM candidate of all time winning a huge Majority in 1968,….. but was up against painfully clumsy rookie PM Candidate Stanfield and only picked up 24 seats on Lester Pearson’s minority government. The Liberals went from 40% of the popular vote with Pearson to 45% with PET.

If Justin T does as good as his Dad in 1968 Trudeaumania and picks up 24 seats it will leave the Liberals with 58 seats and an increase in popular vote of 5% would leave them with 24% of the popular vote.

Justin T has to hope that Harper gets caught eating a Banana and drops a football and that Canada goes gaga for a his new pimp hat and cape.

I don't think Baird's largely triumphant retirement will hurt them at all. The Duffy trial could, but to do that it would need to surprise Canadians. Is there anything serious we don't already know or suspect regarding Duffy?

Politicians don't generally get punished for doing underhanded things. They get punished for doing underhanded things they weren't expected to do. Contrast Richard Nixon with Bill Clinton - both did things worthy of impeachment, but Nixon's ran contrary to his public image, while Clinton's reinforced his. Nixon's popularity tanked. Clinton's held steady.

And Duffy's health might save Harper from even this small risk. If Duffy doesn't stand trial (because he's too ill, or because he dies), there will be no scary revelations.

Trudeau hasn't cured the Liberals' ills; he's simply distracted us from them. The Liberals are still the party that went from having no platform (Martin) to an idiotic platform (Dion) to no platform again (Ignatieff), with a steady and predictable decline the whole way. Until the Liberals demonstrate that they stand for something and have an actual policy idea, I question the need for their existence. A charismatic leader still needs some substance behind him.

But there's time, yet. The Liberals have said they'll release a platform. I look forward to reading it. Canada would benefit from a credible opposition.

The terrible damage Harper's micromanagement of everything has done to our democracy is reason enough to choose another party. The Liberals will release a platform for the election. To do otherwise would be political suicide (ala NDP). At the very least, the Cons will be reduced to a short lived minority and this 9 year nightmare will finally be over.

How has climate change or even more importantly environment hurt Canadians? Is there more pollution, worse air, acid rain, smog over Harper's 9 years than Chretien's?

As for economy and jobs and wealth of the middle class ..... The Winnipeg Jets came back into the NHL in the most middle if not lower class large city/province in Canada...... They have been and will be sold out at the highest ticket prices in the NHL for the foreseeable future. IMO the middle class has silently been doing very very well under Harper.

"Contrast Richard Nixon with Bill Clinton - both did things worthy of impeachment, but Nixon's ran contrary to his public image, while Clinton's reinforced his."

Nixon ran contrary to his public image?????

Do you honestly believe this?????

Are you not aware of the number of times there were proclamations that Nixon was a "New Nixon"????

Nixon's shady unethical character was well known after the sleazy campaign that he ran for Congress to first get elected in 1946.

Regarding Clinton and impeachment. While Clinton's behaviour was also clearly unethical, if lying over sex was grounds for impeachment, then lying to start a war, were grounds for George W. Bush to get the death penalty.

Oh, I made one mistake, sorry. There was a bill for an elected Senate that was passed in 2009.

Given that it went to the Senate for amendments, and given that the NDP opposes having a Senate at all, even an elected Senate. It's most likely, since the bill must have passed the House of Commons to get to the Senate, that the Liberals must have voted in favor of it.

The Liberal Party Platform of 2008 was, far from being idiotic, but was the opposite. It recommended lowering income taxes (the real 'tax on everything') while increasing taxes on pollution. A position endorsed by virtually every economist on both the right and left, with the exception, I suppose of 'economist' Stephen Harper.

Eric, far be it from me to tell you how to run your website, but might I make a suggestion that while I realize you can't know everything, that you not publish comments with statements that are clearly factually incorrect. While I will admit my biases, all of the Conservatives Party posters on this very thread have backed up their arguments with evidence that I've just shown to be factually incorrect. And yes, I realize that Ira was not being literal when he said that Martin had no platform, but was likely referring to Martin's supposed reputation as Mr. Dithers.

Oops, the "Liberal" Party campaign platform I posted a link to was from the CBC 2006 election website, and it was actually the Green Party platform.

Here is the 2004 platform:http://www.hillwatch.com/Publications/Bulletins/Liberal_and_Conservative_Party_Platforms.aspx

This is a discussion of the 2006 platform:Titled Securing Canada’s Success, the 84-page document was, for the most part, a compilation of government policies over the past year interspersed with the policy announcements Martin has made so far on the hustings.

1,I don't know if the Liberals delayed them or not in the Senate, the Wiki article only says that they passed amendments to it.

2.Given that, as I said, the Liberals likely had to vote for the senate election bills for them to pass in the House of Commons I'd be surprised at least, if the Liberal Senators did delay the bills that it was on the orders of the Liberal Party leader.

3.I doubt the Senate Reform Act, which I believe only included limiting the terms of senators to 8 years, included anything to do with electoral reform of the Senate, as Harper put that question to the Supreme Court at the same time as introducing the act.

As the Supreme Court has now ruled on it, an elected senate is effectively dead.

That said, as Flanagan and Manning have both said, Harper was never very big in the first place on the populist ideas of recall and initiatives, though I don't know if they include elected Senate reform in that.

That is not what the Supreme Court ruled in the Senate reference case (2014). They did not rule out the possibility of an elected Senate but, indicated any substantive change must come through negotiation and be approved via the 7/50 amending procedure or unanimous consent in the case of abolition. Parliament did have the ability to amend the property qualifications.

@Chimurenga.. The salient point in this argument is that in his rookie campaign as leader PET(well 2nd after with Brian Mulroney) was the most successful rookie leader basically in the history of Canada.

That is a HUGE reason that the Liberal Party rolled the dice and are taking a chance on Justin to regain the magic of Trudeau-mania....

Is there any other reason you can come up with on why Justin Trudeau is leader of the Liberals over Bob Rae, Martha Hall Findlay or Marc Garneau?

Both Mulroney and PET were going up against rookie Candidates - Turner and Robert Stanfield who made huge mistakes in the election campaign.... Mulroney and PET did not win so much as Stanfield and Turner lost.

Of the 3 current leaders Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau: what are the odds of them doing something in a campaign that clearly looses them the election?

I would put Harper at 5 % and Trudeau at 75% and Mulcair at 50% ...

Trudeau has only been in the political spot light since he was ordained leader and in his limited exposure has made several unforced errors.

Without a clear reason (platform) that he really believes in and bases his statements on this true belief then he is prone to stumble and say absurd things when trying to say nothing.

"I would put Harper at 5 % and Trudeau at 75% and Mulcair at 50% ... "

You may be right about Trudeau, but Mulcair is easily the best of all the leaders with an ability to think on his feet.

That you think the odds of him making a verbal gaffe is 50% says nothing about the real odds of him actually making a gaffe, but merely shows what an extreme hyper partisan you are.

Of course, Harper did get away with making easily the largest blunder by a political leader in Canada, that there was no recession in 2008. An incredibly stupid statement for some one who prides himself for his masters in economics.

If Harper could make that big a gaffe in an election, I'd say the odds of him making another dimwitted boner this time around are way higher than 5%.

That was not a gaffe. If Harper had said we're heading into a trough it may have lowered markets and made the situation worse. When Harper made his "no recession" comment (from what I recall the PM was more nuanced) he may have been right. The economy only fell into recession in 2009 and was still growing albeit very modestly in the third and fourth quarters of 2008. Another Liberal-NDP gaffe perhaps?

It sure looks as if the Bloc is headed for new lows; it will be telling to see if the recent support level of 15-16% holds. If it breaks 15% is there any good reason for the BQ to exist? To be a protest vote- is that enough? At 15% in their best ridings they only attract 20-25% of voters and are competitive in about a dozen ridings.

I think BQ support will collapse entirely before the next election, that is bad news for the Liberals and the NDP because nationalist Quebeckers often find a home with the Tories. 26% may be an outlier but, there is no doubt that since 2011 Quebec's political structure has been in flux, Marois' defeat, the rise of the NDP, CAQ and Quebec Solidare and on-going poll results appear to indicate Quebec politics is still searching for an equilibrium. If the Bloc Quebecois entirely disappears I think the Tories will be the beneficiaries and I would not be surprised to see them capture around 30% and aprroximately 30 seats in October.

This is quite a catch 22 for the Conservatives. The more they have helped obliterate the BQ, the more the Liberals gained in Quebec and thus leave the Conservatives with a minority instead of the current majority.

One problem with people outside of Quebec trying to analyse politics in the province is that - thanks to the mainstream Canadian media who barely cover the province - you have no real information to base your analysis on. The Conservatives are nowhere in evidence in this province, there is no liking towards them, rather, overwhelming hostility. They may keep their few seats, and adding one is imaginable, but to say that BQ votes will go to the Cons, resulting in 30 Qc seats is mere fantasy. It's been shown repeatedly that the BQ vote diverts to the NDP, the federalist vote now is split between the NDP and the Liberals, and frankly, there's no BQ vote left to go anywhere in the next election anyway.Again, with the benefit of honest and serious reporting, or by being in Quebec, it would be easy to see what is, in fact, a pretty consistent political line through the various changes that have happened here in the last 5 years. First, Quebeckers do hold to a number of progressive values as represented in the NDP and QS. Second, Marois's ignominious defeat was to a significant extent the result of her party's renunciation of those same progressive values - values the PQ had previously professed (since Levesque's departure, no more than rhetorically, it has to be said). Third, support for the Liberals is an overwhelmingly anglo- and allophone phenomenon and that support is concentrated in a minority of the province's seats. The polls largely suggest that the Liberals and NDP will dominate the seat count in the next election.

First off I lived in Quebec for years until high taxes and an unsuitable work force caused me to relocate myself and business. Secondly, English Canada has more than enough information on Quebec whether it be Chantal Hebert or Radio-Canada or the hundred of thousands of Quebeckers who move from the Province every year in search of employment or the ability to educate their children in the language of their choice. Quebeckers think they are unique and different but, the sad crux of the matter is if you taught a Mississippian or Alabaman French you could call them Quebecois!

chirumenga, Brian, Walter and Mr. X,The Conservatives are at 18 and 26% in these polls! Conservative poll numbers have been particularly robust over the last 6-12 months. So to intone the Conservatives are; "nowhere in evidence in this province (sic)", or that the BQ vote doesn't vote Conservative is nothing more than willful blindness. Quebec has a long history of conservative movements and the recent success of the Conservative party over the last 3 elections along with the provincial success of the CAQ proves a conservative streak is very much alive and well among the overly taxed and regulated peoples of Lower Canada.

And please enough with the nonsense of Quebeckers' holding progressive values. Bill 101 is not a progressive piece of legislation it is regressive and both socially and politically conservative. Separatism is not a progressive value, it is a nationalist-conservative value that demonstrates a high degree of tribalism is active in Quebec. I mean come on, the Quebecois are a people that remained largely under the thumb of 19th century clericalism until the 1970's! It is great to imply that Quebeckers hold progressive values as demonstrated by the QS but, the QS is the fourth party in Quebec they only received a quarter of the votes the CAQ did! So what does the QS really represent other than about 7% of the electorate?

It is only a prediction but, the vehement response of some who simply can't accept what is I readily admit a best guess, I think indicates I am on to something. 2015 a Harper majority and the death of the Liberal party-it's going to be a great year!

Walter, As we have witnessed over the last few months the Liberals have not gained from the BQ's weakness. In the polls above the Grits are at 27%, better than the last election but, far from a historical high for the Liberal party.

The very recent evidence we have to go by indicates that when Bloc voters leave the Bloc, they vote NDP, but farbeit from us to dissuade you from the notion that they're going to give themselves ideological transplants and vote Conservative.

One data point from four years ago is scant evidence. Most analysts would opine former BQ voters voted for Jack Layton not the NDP and so NDP philosophy or policy is inconsequential.

The philosophy of Quebec nationalism is a conservative ideology, I would go so far as to say a reactionary philosophy. As the BQ demonstrates people can encapsulate conflicting ideologies within one body. Quebec has a long proud history of voting for the Conservative party from Macdonald to Mulroney, the Creditistes, ADQ, CAQ et cetera.

The BQ is slowly disintegrating 15% is a death rattle. Since 2011 they have been unable to maintain a base of support. They have a leader that even sovereigntists don't like, without federal subsidies they are broke and their ideology seems out of place in an increasingly integrated world. They've lost half their 2011 election support and lost 3/4 caucus members, I see no reason for Quebeckers to support them come October and I predict they won't.

"One data point from four years ago is scant evidence. Most analysts would opine former BQ voters voted for Jack Layton not the NDP and so NDP philosophy or policy is inconsequential. "

There is also considerable evidence based on polling over issues over the last many years that back up Quebec holding left leaning views.

" Quebec has a long proud history of voting for the Conservative party from Macdonald to Mulroney, the Creditistes, ADQ, CAQ et cetera. "

Given Mulroney and Mario Dumont I'm not sure how 'proud' that history is. (I actually generally like Mulroney, his government anyway, if not the man himself). And, of course, I note you left out the Conservative Union Nationale (wonder why) led by the truly vile Maurice Duplessis. I hope calling him vile is acceptable here, just wiki Duplessis Orphans.

Other than the one brief shortlived datapoint of the ADQ winning about 1/3 of the seats, I don't believe that any of those parties ever won more than 20% of the seats in Quebec.

I don't know what Forum and Ekos are measuring in Quebec - and maybe Éric is right and they're over-polling in the Quebec city region - but they are not measuring political support across the province. At least, not accurately. Yes, there's always been a seam of support for conservative/right wing politics here - like anywhere else - but it is not dominant. The disapproval of the Conservative government/Party is stronger in Quebec than any other province, and very deep. It also goes back to the end of the Mulroney era. And, in fact, support for Mulroney didn’t imply an embracing of conservative values – it represented a mixed bag of attitudes including strong support for NAFTA (more so than the rest of the country), preference for a Quebec-based leader, rejection of the Trudeau legacy, etc. A little point on Quebec history… for decades the province lived under the boot of a fascist government (the Union Nationale) and powerful Catholic Church (that essentially ignored Vatican II), finally breaking free with the Quiet Revolution. People here do not intend to return to the former regime or even its paler imitation.

First off you use the tern "fascist" incorrectly and in the wrong context. the Union Natioanle was not a fascist party. Secondly, your comment implies Jack Layton's grandfather was a fascist since, he was a member of the Union Nationale. A shameful comment more evidence of the desperate situation the NDP finds itself in.

Éric, Sorry, I misread, "but Forum has often had higher numbers than usual for the Conservatives in Quebec" as referring to the region of Quebec City.

Simon, You're drawing a conclusion that hasn't been justified. Quebec has "a history of siding with the party most likely to form government" because it is one of the two largest provinces, with many more seats than any of the other 8 provinces. If a large number of Quebeckers vote for party X, chances are it will form the government, regardless of any other considerations. The BQ formed the official opposition for that reason, not because there was some sort of trend Quebeckers were homing in on.

The Union Nationale was precisely a fascist party - in the manner of its model, the National Fascist Party of Italy. It was populist, authoritarian, strongly pro-business, and pro-Catholic Church. Being a populist party, tenets from other political tendencies were also present, notably, borrowings from strains of socialism. It doesn't follow that Gilbert Layton was a fascist simply because he was a member of the party that, after all, he quit when it refused to join the war against the Nazis and Fascists.

I have no idea why you think my comment says anything about the NDP - you must be daydreaming something...

History proves Quebec more often than not votes for the governing party. When Macdonald was PM Quebec voted Tory, When Laurier was PM Quebec voted Liberal, When WLMK was PM Quebec voted Liberal when Dief was in Quebec voted Tory, when Trudeau was PM Quebec switched to the Liberals and when Mulroney became PM Quebec found its conservatism.

These are bad polls for Trudeau especially in Quebec. to form government any party needs at a minimum 100 seats. Since the Tories dominate the West and Ontario evenly divided The Grits need a sizable Quebec contingent to reach the 100 seat mark. Obviously, Quebec is Justin's home province and one wonders how effective a political leader he will be if he can't carry Quebec. More polls like the ones above will demonstrate a two party contest for government in Canada with the Liberals reduced to third party also-rans.

" More polls like the ones above will demonstrate a two party contest for government in Canada with the Liberals reduced to third party also-rans."

Comments like this remind me of the posters on election prediction sites who would predict the Liberal incumbent was going to end up in third place in Kingston and the Islands (probably the safest Liberal seat in Ontario).

One poll puts the Liberals 8 points ahead on the NDP and the other puts the Liberals 14 points ahead and the Liberals are running for third place?

I'll agree that could happen in so far as Mulcair has the highest favorables and if his numbers on 'best prime minister' start to match his favorables in the campaign, the NDP could make large gains.

That said, there is nothing in these polls, or any other, all of which show the NDP at around 20% to the mid 20s at best that suggest the Liberals are running for 3rd place.

You also left out1.Quebec is also Mulcair's (the actual leader of the opposition) home province and his party holds most of the seats there.

2.That the Liberals are likely to win over 20 seats in Atlantic Canada. So, if Ontario actually did split, the Liberals wouldn't actually need more than around 10 seats in Quebec (along with the handful they usually win in the west) to get to 100 seats.

Capilano, I believe you've contradicted yourself. Are the Liberals, in your view, heading for third place or not?

But more importantly, as a regular reader of this blog, how can you say, "how many points the Liberals are up on the NDP is of no consequence"? Of course it matters. If the Liberals are leading the NDP in Quebec by 1%, they will have few seats to show for their efforts. If they're leading the NDP by 15% or more they'll get a bundle. It could be the difference between winning the election and… third place.

I meant how many points doesn't matter because we determine outcome in Westminster systems with seats. In terms of Quebec yes, a 1-15% difference will make a difference in terms of seats but, it depends where those votes are located. 15% in Montreal may not win many extra seats. In any case it doesn't look like the Liberal party is doing particularly well in Quebec. It appears the "soft-nationalist" vote is moving from the NDP and BQ toward the Tories with the Liberals stagnant at a low ebb.

I think the Liberal party is in real trouble and at this juncture I think likely to remain in third place. It is too early to predict a seat count. However my prediction is that Trudeau will bomb. I think many Canadians' minds are made up on Trudeau and they don't view him in a primeministerial light at least not yet.

People forget PET was an academic and "intellectual" in the broad sense of the term, Justin looks like a light-weight. Justin Trudeau's lack of ability to speak on policy hurts his public image. He doesn't look primeministeral because he isn't speaking of primeministerial things. This is not to say Justin isn't intelligent but, it is a strange public relations strategy in the run up to an election not to put a leader in a position to look "primeministerial". My bet is that Justin will get beat up pretty bad during the campaign-I think he will be a flop. If Trudeau can't secure roughly 25/30 seats in Quebec then it is likely the NDP will remain the Official Opposition unless the Tories?BQ? FeD take away a large share of the NDP Quebec base. That is why Quebec is critical for the Liberals because without it they are not the de facto government-in-waiting. Quebec allows the NDP to be a player and makes it necessary to defeat the Tories in Conservative leaning ridings of Ontario.

We could well find ourselves in a position of two nearly equal opposition parties of about 70 seats.

I'm curious what it would take for the Greens to get more than 2 seats. I don't think I've ever seen your projections show a 3rd seat for the high range. Of course, the Greens would like to get 12 seats and become an official HOC party (idiotic how much money parties get at that point). It is a screwy system that they could get 10% and still end up with as low as 2 seats while 39% could get a majority.

The only seats I'm aware of where the Greens could win are 3 of the 4 Southern Vancouver Island ridings:1.Elizabeth May's seat2.Victoria3.Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke

The 4th Southern V.I riding is Cowichan-Malahat-Langford and it is more of a 'blue collar' area where the Greens aren't as likely to do well.

The only other ridings I'd expect the Greens to have strength in in all of Canada are the Winnipeg riding held provincially by New Democrat Rob Altemeyer, where the Greens routinely finish in a distant second place provincially and maybe the New Brunswick riding which the N.B Green Party leader holds provincially.

Eric, thanks for publishing my posts. I know that, while my posts aren't that partisan, I can be insulting to people I do consider partisan. I try to restrain myself from posting what often want to really say to those people. I

The NDP wants to replace the Liberals not hand them the keys to government. A coalition or governing arrangement doesn't suit either the NDP or Liberals because it splits the vote and will allow for continued Conservative majority governments.

Actually to form a government a party just needs the support of the majority of MPs. It could be done with fewer than 100 seats. Since 170 is the magic number hypothetically: Liberals/NDP get 85 and 86 seats and decide to play nice together (or any pair of parties). I suspect (and I think that Eric has mentioned this) that what will largely determine the outcome of the federal election are the same seats that handed the liberals their majority provincially in Ontario and a handful in BC. This makes you wonder if the low Canadian dollar is part of a conservative plot to win those seats j/k :) What will be interesting to me will be to see is if the not so quiet antagonism between the Ontario Liberals and the Federal Conservatives will have any impact on the upcoming election.

You don't need any M.P.s to form Government, Government formation is a Crown appointment. In BC one 19th century premier had a government caucus of one-himself!

I was writing in a hypothetical context, any party that doesn't look able to win at least 100 seats will not appear to be competitive to form Government to most Canadians. it is why the NDP for most of its history has been viewed as a minor party.

I expect Wynne will play nice because she needs federal money especially if she follows through with an OPP.

Eric, I remember a couple of months ago that you made a post giving the percentages each of the big three parties would need to win a minority and majority government. Now that the new model is in place, have those numbers changed, or are they largely the same?

Well, the baby decided to wake up, so not tomorrow morning for both polls projection. In order, it will be Forum and Abacus:

146-130 CPC111-105 LPC73-102 NDP6-1 BQ2-2 GPC

Atlantic18-27 LPC10-3 CPC4-2 NDP

Québec36-58 NDP21-16 LPC15-3 CPC6-1 BQ

Ontario52-46 LPC50-55 CPC19-20 NDP

Prairies19-16 CPC6-6 LPC3-6 NDP

Alberta27-32 CPC5-1 LPC2-1 NDP

British Columbia24-20 CPC8-8 LPC8-12 NDP2-2 GPC

Territories1 CPC1 LPC1 NDP

I find Forum's poll numbers a bit... strange. I may not know everyone in Québec, but I still have a feel of how things are. To say that the CPC would be in front of the NDP is absolutely ridiculous, and to say they are virtually tied first place with the LPC is completely absurd. You just need to spend a little bit of time here to know that. I'd be willing to bet they overpolled in the region of Québec and think this to be representative of the province, but Québec City is a beast of its own, it almost never votes like the rest of the province. I don't know BC, but Forum is the only one not showing a three-way race there, and by far. Same thing with Ontario and Alberta, the former with a "strong" LPC lead over the CPC and the latter with a "competitive" LPC compared to the CPC. Either they are genius, either they are missing the boat completely.

As for Abacus, I find those numbers interesting. I mean in a result kind of way, not that they are better. In Québec, I feel they make sense, but for the rest of Canada, I can't really say. They are more in line with the other polls though, which would generally lend credence to their numbers. What I find interesting is the LPC-NDP almost tie in the seat count. Should this scenario play out in the next election, I'd be really interested to see how things play out (we can pretty much rule out a LPC-NDP alliance in this situation I believe, but how long would the CPC be allowed to rule, would leaders step out or would they all feel they somehow won the vote, etc).

While I doubt Québec's numbers again, thinking they probably overpolled the Québec City region (the other parts of the country seem fine though when taking margins of error into account), with these numbers, my model gives:

EKOS latest poll has the CPC higher than EKOS had them in the run up to the 2011 election.

Frank Graves: "The 35-point level is their best poll since 2011 and it is higher than where we had them in the final stages of the 2011 election campaign, which resulted in a majority victory.”"

In Quebec : "With a margin of error of 4.9 per cent, the Liberals are on top at 26.7 per cent, but the Conservatives — at 25.7 — are nipping at their heels, and the NDP are right behind them at 23.1.The Bloc are sitting at 16.1 per cent."

The wheels have come off the Trudeau bandwagon.

There will be a lot of political junkies that should be pleased that it came before the Negative attack ads.

It might also be fear. Given the recent prominence of ISIS and other terrorist groups, people are likely imaging the leaders dealing with those issues.

Trudeau's comments, in the past, have largely been conciliatory toward terrorists. He wants to find out why they're becoming terrorists and then deal with those issues. And that isn't a terrible idea, in the abstract. But faced with a force as menacing as ISIS, is that really the appropriate response?

The imagine Trudeau has been actively cultivating for himself is incompatible with using military force against ISIS. And pretty much the whole world right now wants to use military force against ISIS. When did Japan last send combat forces abroad?

I prefer to think of it as moral resolve as opposed to fear. Even the most mewling pacifist by now must see that the wahabi/salafi islamist problem is not going to go away through peace and love. It's about time people woke up IMHO.

"Ottawa would set national targets and enforce principles but allow provinces to design their own systems."

What will Trudeau do if Ontario says it doesn't want to pay the extra 20 cents a litre that we in BC are already doing?

The only way that heath care standards are forced on the provinces is by the threat of withholding Health Care transfers.

Will Trudeau make Ontario's equalization payment dependent upon them fighting carbon?

Is BC already doing enough? Alberta? Quebec?

BC has had a drop in fuel consumption.... well Canadian Fuel consumption as it is hard to calculate how much gas is bought across the border at cut rate US prices. Washington State needs the employment ore than BC?

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.